Over the course of Trump’s initial presidency and subsequent re-election, the United States has faced several threats to the resilience and stability of its democratic institutions. From the January 6 Capital Attack — an unprecedented failure in the transfer of power — to proposals in Congress of a third Trump term, the U.S continues to face threats to its most fundamental democratic norms. Against this backdrop, The Trump Administration, in collaboration with tech billionaire Elon Musk and politician Vivek Ramaswamy, established the department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE is a federal agency designed with the intent to “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” DOGE was designed to operate temporarily under the U.S. DOGE Service, previously the United States Digital Service. Though Musk and his allies argue DOGE will streamline government processes, its introduction threatens democratic stability and the integrity of existing institutions. Since its establishment through executive order, DOGE has swiftly exerted authority. One of its first actions was freezing funding for several federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), bringing a halt to humanitarian aims worldwide. Although DOGE justified this as a cost-cutting measure, it challenges the appropriations clause by bypassing Congress’s power to approve federal budget spending. Simply put, DOGE operates as an unelected shadow government, with limited transparency or accountability. 

In addition to freezing funds, DOGE has accessed sensitive Treasury Department data without congressional approval, namely payment systems that process trillions of dollars annually. Further, DOGE’s actions have disrupted government agencies and raised anxiety in government workers. Staffers linked to DOGE and Musk’s companies, namely SpaceX and Tesla, have gained access to “sensitive systems, and information on government payments and employees” at federal agencies. DOGE’s actions allow private interests to influence government outcomes without resistance. Neither Musk nor Ramawamy, the two unelected individuals spearheading DOGE’s initiatives, have been subject to formal oversight.

DOGE’s governance approach shares similarities with authoritarian regimes. In bypassing democratic norms, DOGE sets a dangerous precedent in influencing the tactics employed by future administrations. This new political age is reminiscent of democratic backsliding in countries like Hungary and Brazil. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has exploited his party’s control over electoral laws, dismantling democratic institutions and consolidating executive power. Likewise, in Brazil, former President Jair Boslnaro has waged attacks on democratic institutions, breeding political instability and eroding trust in government. 

The dangers of DOGE closely mirror Adam Przeworksi’s theory of democracy, which argues that democracy functions best when political stakes are low, allowing for peaceful conflict resolution. When political stakes are high, as with DOGE’s extensive reforms, politicians may pursue power through undemocratic measures, leading to democratic erosion. Specifically, DOGE demonstrates executive aggrandizement, where elected executives gradually weaken checks on their power through legal channels rather than overt coups.

In the U.S., the government response to DOGE has been polarizing. Some lawmakers support DOGE’s mission to enhance efficiency. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, for instance, stated his committee is collaborating alongside DOGE to streamline needed improvements in government. On the other hand, some express concerns of the risk of overreach and DOGE’s access to sensitive information. For example, a coalition of 19 predominantly democratic-led states filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing the U.S. Department of Treasury Systems. More lawmakers must act in order to prevent DOGE from expanding without proper checks, as its consolidation of power poses risks for democratic accountability. Without adequate oversight, DOGE will accelerate bureaucratic overreach, undermining democratic institutions that safeguard transparency and public participation in governance. 

The pushback against DOGE highlights the importance of institutional resilience as a safeguard against democratic erosion. Several case studies make this evident. In the United Kingdom, for instance, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament was found unlawful and reversed, illustrating the strength of the UK’s democratic institutions. In Poland, when the leading government was undermining democratic principles, opposition parties remained strong, effectively forming a coalition to expel them. These examples illustrate a precedent of the critical role of institutional checks and competing governmental influences in reversing democratic erosion. 

To reiterate, DOGE is a largely unprecedented, risky experiment in governance.  If DOGE continues enforcing sweeping reforms with limited accountability, they threaten to erode the institutions that uphold U.S. democratic values. DOGE’s mandate seeks to consolidate executive control through bypassing checks and balances, disregarding accountability in the pursuit of efficiency. Although DOGE is a temporary agency, its sustained effects enable further administrations to further consolidate executive control and weaken democratic institutions. 

In light of this, it is evident that swift action must be taken to uphold American democracy. This is not without hope, however, as hundreds organized outside of the U.S. Capital on January 30th to support the civil service and protest DOGE dismantling the U.S Government. In the future, the people must continue to organize themselves, fostering awareness, activism, and engagement in order to ensure the department does not operate without significant pushback. The future of U.S. Democracy is in our hands.